Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-09-24 - Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING VILLAGE HALL, 938 KING STREET Tuesday, September 24, 2002—7:30 p.m. Regular/Special Meeting AGENDA 7:00 p.m.: Executive Session—Appointments to Boards, Committees & Commissions ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE REPORTS 1) WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING PRESENTATION ON THE PROPOSED DE-ICING FACILITY TO BE LOCATED AT WESTCHESTER COUNTY AIRPORT 2) BELLEFAIR AIRPORT DE-ICING TASK FORCE INTRODUCTION AND PRESENTATION RESOLUTIONS 1) REFERRING K&M REALTY APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND WETLANDS PERMIT ON BOWMAN AVENUE, SECTION 1, BLOCK 22, LOT 2B, TO THE PLANNING BOARD 2) AUTHORIZING REDUCTION OF THE RED ROOF FARM SUBDIVISION PERFORMANCE BOND 3) RESOLUTIONS CONDSIDERING THE REMOVAL AND INSTALLATION OF FENCING AT PINE RIDGE/RED ROOF FARM BALL FIELD 4) REFERRING NO PARKING AREA/STOP SIGN REQUEST ON RED ROOF DRIVE TO THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION 5) CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE DR. LEE BUILDING EXPANSION AMENDED SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL ON 62 BOWMAN AVENUE Board of Trustees September 24,2002 Page 1 of 28 6) DISCUSSION OF THE PROJECT AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUBMISSION OF A WESTCHESTER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR SIDEWALK RESTORATION AND REHABILITATION 7) DISCUSSION OF THE PROJECT AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUBMISSION OF A WESTCHESTER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC RESTROOMS, FENCING AND A GRAVITY FED RETAINING WALL AT GARIBALDI PARK 8) AWARDING CONTRACT 902-06: STREET TREE PRUNING, REMOVAL AND COMPOSTING SERVICES 9) AWARDING CONTRACT 902-08: ONE (1) CUBIC-YARD SELF CONTAINED VACUUM LEAF LOADER 10) APPROVING MEETING MINUTES: May 14, 2002 August 13, 2002 August 27, 2002 ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS ACTION ON NON-AGENDA MATTERS SUBJECT TO THE CONSENT OF THE TRUSTEES PRESENT AT THE MEETING CONVENE: The meeting of the Board of Trustees was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Filipowski. PRESENT: Mayor Francis L. Filipowski Trustee Jody H. Brackman Trustee Donald Degling Trustee Carol Goodman Trustee Dean Santon Board of Trustees September 24,2002 Page 2 of 28 STAFF: Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Ed Beane, Village Attorney Robert Bertolacci, Superintendent of Recreation Victor Carosi, Village Engineer David S. Kvinge, RLA, AICP, Planning Consultant Robert Santoro, Police Chief Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Mayor Filipowski called the meeting to order by calling for the first item on the agenda. 1) WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING PRESENTATION ON THE PROPOSED DE-ICING FACILITY TO BE LOCATED AT WESTCHESTER COUNTY AIRPORT Commissioner Salley addressed the Board. He thanked the Board for the opportunity to present the preliminary plan for the proposed De-Icing Facility at the Westchester County Airport. The County has commissioned the firm of Camp, Dresser & McKee to take a look at what was presently being done at the Airport, and at the environmental impacts. They were charged with looking at both short-term and long-term improvements. The initial document encompasses this research. The real document for discussion is the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that will be completed by the end of the month, or early next month. It will be submitted to the Board of Legislators for their review and consideration. At that time public hearings will be held. There is a problem with regard to the de-icing procedures at the airport. There is an impact on the water quality and this needs to be addressed from an environmental standpoint as well as a legal standpoint. Commissioner Salley introduced the members of the staff that were in attendance: Henry J. Stanton, Deputy Commissioner of Transportation for the County of Westchester; Claudia Maxwell, the Environmental Planner; Joel Russell, the Airport Manager; Renee Johns, the Director of Environmental Operations at the Airport; Bob Fuciolo, the Director of Special Environmental Projects; Robert Dishower, a Member of the Airport Advisory Board; and Nanette Vignola Henry of Camp, Dresser&McKee. Ms. Vignola Henry addressed the Board. She pointed out that her presentation consisted of a report and overhead projections. Her presentation was associated with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement associated with the proposed centralized de-icing facility at the Westchester County Airport. She noted that currently the de-icing activities at the Airport affect the Blind Brook and the Long Island Sound. Tests were done at the outlets of the Blind Brook and the findings were above the limits set. All aircrafts must be de-iced, and is mandatory at temperatures of 36 degrees and below. Research has been done on ways to reduce the amount of propylene glycol that is used at the Airport. Also explored were methods to recycle it and make improvements in its capture. Without action at this time the existing problem at this Airport will only get worse. The slides Board of Trustees September 24,2002 Page 3 of 28 reviewed the objectives, a brief description of the overall project, the environmental review process, the potential environmental impacts, and the benefits overall. Two goals have been set. The first is to protect water quality. The second is to maintain aviation safety. The de-icing study has lasted for two years. The study looked at existing conditions at the Airport, and ways of improving it. A recommendation was made for a change in the way the de-icing occurs at the Airport. The northern end of the Airport was looked at, however, it was found not to be practical for two major reasons. The first was that the site is located in the Rye Lake Watershed, and part of the New York City Reservoir System. The second point was that aircraft traffic management would be chaotic. Aircrafts take off from Runway 34, which is at the southern end of the Airport. This would mean that planes would crisscross their paths along the taxiways. If a delay occurred, then the aircrafts would have to be de-iced again before takeoff. They also looked at ways to improve the existing de-icing facilities. This location would improve the collection, but would not maximize it, therefore, it would provide limited potential for recycling, and would not provide any options to reduce the volume of propylene glycol used, i.e.: infrared technology. Other sites that are closer to Runway 34 were researched. However, it was found that it would be costly to relocate the current tenants and only one infrared unit would fit on this site. Next, the end of Runway 34 was explored, and it was found that there is an area that is currently vegetated. This site meets the objective. All aircrafts could be de-iced, the collection could be maximized, and the volume of propylene glycol used could be greatly reduced through the use of infrared technology. This parcel provides for a centralized location for all aircrafts to be de-iced. All other existing de-icing activities would cease at the Airport once this project was implemented. The material could be recycled. The low content material would be collected and sent for treatment at a wastewater treatment plant. The high content runoff would be sent to storage tanks where it can be discharged via a pipeline to the Blind Brook Treatment Plant, or trucked to an off-site location for treatment and disposal. The de-icing pad itself would contain five (5) bays. This is the necessary number to accommodate the current number of aircrafts utilizing this airport today. The facility would cover approximately ten (10) acres. The first bay would be occupied by an infrared facility. The second bay has the potential to be converted to an infrared facility. One of the remaining chemical bays would be fit for light aircraft. The storage tanks are proposed to be located in a valley area north of Lincoln Avenue. One (1) tank would hold the high content glycol. That tank size is 150,000 gallons. There would be two (2) tanks to hold the low concentrate material. These tanks would be up to 2,000,000 gallons each in size. The tanks are approximately 50' in height. The elevation of the tanks would be at the same height as the pad elevation. This would allow for gravity to fill those tanks and would prevent overfilling. Ms. Vignola Henry gave a brief description of the contents of propylene glycol. The Westchester County Board of Legislators assumed the role of Lead Agency on June 3, 2002. At that time they also adopted a Positive Declaration concerning this proposed project. The document that is under preparation is a joint document. It is also prepared under the FAA Guidelines. The draft is under preparation and will be provided to the Westchester County Board of Legislators upon completion. Once they have reviewed the draft, and deemed it Board of Trustees September 24,2002 Page 4 of 28 acceptable and complete, they will provide it for public review and comments. There will be a public hearing and comments will be received both at that time, as well as in writing. At the end of the comment period, a final DEIS will be prepared. It will go through the Board of Legislators for review. When it is deemed complete it will be provided for public input and comments. A statement of findings will be prepared. Ms. Vignola Henry noted that noise levels are being checked, as is the air quality. A computer three-dimensional model is being used to help determine the visual impacts. A topographic image of the area has been created which shows the area of the proposed facility that would remain green. The storage tanks were also shown, along with views of the proposed facility from different points of view. The next presentation was made by the Bellefair De-Icing Task Force. Mr. Brad Hamburger addressed the Board. He noted that his task force became aware of this proposal on August 6, 2002. This task force has done extensive research into this project. They have made requests to the County under the Freedom of Information Act for all documentation related to this project. This Act allows any citizens to find out what the government is doing on our behalf. They were very cooperative. The Task Force hired an Environmental Engineer to review this project. Although this project has just come to light, officials have given the impression that this is a `done deal' and that there is no sympathy for the residents of Bellefair who chose to live next to the Airport, or for United Cerebral Palsy that is also located near the Airport. Many people are just beginning to hear about this process. When the government or County wants to build a 30 Million Dollar facility such as this, they must go through the SEQRA process, and they are required to look at all environmental alternatives. The part of this process that was skipped was the Scoping Process. The Scoping Process engages the Trustees of the Village. It is also when the environmental groups are contacted. Many environmental groups have sent letters of concern to the County about this project, which has been in the works for three years. The County put out bids for a proposal to study de-icing practices in May of 1999. CDM, the firm that made the presentation, was the low bidder. Since then the $90,000+ bid to study de-icing practices has evolved into over $1,000,000 in billing to the County and a huge $30,000,000 de-icing facility without a true investigation of what the best alternative might be. In December of 2001 there was a feasibility study, which the County spent $300,000 on. This study explored this project, and possibly others. If there is a problem with the Blind Brook,where are the studies of the Blind Brook? Mr. Hamburger stated that there were three issues: 1) Trust: the County has violated that trust by going through a process that many people never heard a word about in order to design the proposed facility; 2) The Blind Brook: where is the study and the examination of the issues relating to the Blind Brook; and 3) This project seems to present many more safety, health, and environmental issues then they are proposing to solve. Board of Trustees September 24,2002 Page 5 of 28 Mr. Hamburger noted that there are a host of other problems. First, there is no valley in which to place these storage tanks. Next, there are ten(10) tanker trucks per day that will be traveling back and forth on King Street. And, of equal importance, is the fact that there are ten(10) acres of forest and wetlands that will be eliminated in order to create 15 acres of cement. Mr. Joe Henney of Walden & Associates, an environmental engineering firm, addressed the Board. He noted that he is a New York State Professional Engineer. He stated that he has been reviewing a fair amount of documentation on this project. He presented the Board with comments on his initial read-through of the project. Mr. Henney noted that currently the de-icing of planes at the Airport is done at the gate area. This area covers approximately six (6) acres. Propylene glycol is sprayed on the airplanes. There is a good deal of drippage, and although there is an attempt to contain the material, what falls off runs into the Blind Brook. The six-acre area is proposed to be expanded to ten acres, with a lead up area— 15 acres. This will be 2 '/2 times the volume of storm water runoff produced. CDM was originally asked to evaluate alternatives to the propylene glycol application, as well as better ways to apply propylene glycol outside. At the end of their study the alternatives that were reviewed and discussed were set aside, and the existing system was expanded. The existing storage capacity was expanded by approximately 40 times. Currently the Airport stores propylene glycol storm water and discharges it into the Blind Brook Waste Water Treatment Plant. Some over runs and goes into the Blind Brook. The remainder is trucked to a pumping station and ultimately to the Yonkers Waste Water Treatment Plant. Clearly in the review of alternatives, the best haul route is Lincoln Avenue to King Street. His review, however, did not find that the best way in and out of the Airport to be Lincoln Avenue. CDM did a surface water quality model of the Blind Brook. They recommended that the existing storm water limit to the Blind Brook was arbitrarily low and they recommended that the storm water permit be raised. In a study of alternatives, several options exist beyond propylene glycol. Infrared was mentioned, and de-icing in the buildings was also suggested. If the chemicals were applied inside a building then the materials would be essentially isolated. This would create an ease in recycling. Mr. Henney noted that the capacity of the Blind Brook Waste Water Treatment Facility is five (5) million gallons per day and they are allowed to discharge five (5) gallons per minute during storm events, and one gallon per minute during the day when there are no storm events. The idea of providing small storage and piped flow to the Waste Water Treatment Plant or an evaluation of expanding the Blind Brook Waste Water Treatment Plant, which would have benefits beyond the Airport itself, was not considered at all. The County will spend $20-$30 million dollars on a facility at the Airport, however, if the intent is to improve the water quality at the Blind Brook then clearly the Blind Brook Waste Water Treatment Plant, including the flow capability of that Plant, might be a better place for the County to spend its money. Board of Trustees September 24,2002 Page 6 of 28 In CDM's report, they summarize the numbers of take-offs in an average January day to be approximately 115 take-offs per day. The proposed de-icing pad facility includes five (5) de-icing locations. Assuming that a plane can be de-iced in ten minutes, with five (5) facilities for de-icing, that would generate approximately 30 planes per hour. In six (6) hours this facility could generate 180 take-offs. It was noted that during snowstorms and similar conditions planes do not normally take off 30 per hour. This seems like these pads present substantial redundancy. Mr. Henney felt that the evaluation of alternatives did not include any alternatives at all. The tanks are shown in the same place in all the three (3) alternatives presented in the report. Mr. Henney pointed out that the SEQRA documents also require the review of alternatives. Mr. Peter Schlactus, Co-Chair of the Bellefair Deicing Task Force, addressed the Board. He stated that one thing that needs to be said from the outset is that the residents of Bellefair fully intended to be good neighbors to the airport. When they moved in, the Airport was smaller in size. The new Airport will infringe on their homes. The residents are concerned about what is being planned here, and there are real questions about this type of facility. In light of some of the comments made, there is reason for concern about the County's attitudes towards the neighbors. The stated reason for the review was because of environmental concerns, however very little has been shown to document and justify the scope of the problem and adverse impacts down stream to the extent that a solution such as this is called for or warranted. The next question is whether or not this is about safety. The Airport is currently in full compliance with the FCC regulations and no evidence has been presented that this plan improves safety at the Airport, nor does it prove that a problem currently exists. It is the feeling of the community that in trying to solve an environmental problem, the County has created more problems. They are looking to destroy acres of trees and wetlands, and the replace them with paved surfaces that will create additional runoff. There is a lack of alternatives. It is important to note that this area is bordered by Bellefair, Doral Greens, the Arbors, and other residential areas on King Street and in Connecticut, as well as the senior facility that is being constructed, United Cerebral Palsy's main campus, the Rehab Haven Health Care Rehabilitation Center, Greenwich Woods, and the Greens. There are vulnerable people who reside in the area that need to be protected. Road and traffic safety need to be reviewed, along with the potential for spills. The County says that it is looking to promote and improve safety, however they are proposing chemical storage towers. These towers have visual impacts and create security risks. In addition, Corporate entities within the Airport have questioned the need for this type of facility. Both Corporate and environmental groups are talking with the same language with regard to this proposed facility. Everyone is concerned about the scope of this project. The question of why the Airport needs five (5) pads needs to be answered. Why do they need the operation building that involves eight (8) garage bays for de-icing trucks, instead of the current four (4). Two infrared de-icing pads can handle the entire traffic at the Board of Trustees September 24,2002 Page 7 of 28 Airport so how do they come up with five (5) pads. The County has a no expansion policy for the Airport, so how does the County justify the magnitude of this proposal. Dozens of volunteers have read and analyzed the material. You cannot take the County at face value. The process that they have used is the main reason. Public input is needed, yet the Scoping Process was left out. There has been a failure to bring Rye Brook, and other surrounding Villages, into the project. Because the Villages weren't noticed — the residents were not noticed. No one is opposed to correcting any problems with runoff, but the County has skipped the first step in the process and that is the SEQRA process. No one is opposed to improving the water quality, and no one is opposed to aircraft safety, but everyone is opposed to the process that has been used. Mr. Schlactus noted that currently there have been 600 to 700 signatures collected on petitions opposing this facility, and petitions continue to be circulated. Mr. Osterer, the President of the Board of Directors of United Cerebral Palsy, addressed the Board. He reminded everyone that United Cerebral Palsy was built by people who cared. The residents at this center cannot represent and protect themselves. There are 350 to 400 residents of this center, some of whom cannot walk or talk. He asked that the Village Board help protect these individuals and their quality of life. Karen Schultz of the Sierra Club, and a resident of West Harrison, addressed the Board. She asked that the Village Board protect the drinking water for New York. She pointed out that the Airport is 250 yards from the drinking water for half of the State's population. She asked that the Village Board obtain, in writing, confirmation that nothing else will be constructed at the Airport, and that no additional flights will be added. A resident of Bellefair Road reminded the Board that there will be an effect to the air quality by planes that are idling, waiting to be de-iced. There will also be a significant increase in noise. She felt that this facility, which is being proposed to be constructed 800 feet from her door step was unsafe. There will be carcinogens released into the air. This is not a healthy facility but rather a poison plant. Mr. Nicholas Lyras, Doral Greens, addressed the Board. He noted that the residents of Doral Greens are very concerned, and they seriously question whether the scope of the problem that would justify a solution of this magnitude. He asked to be given an opportunity to review the alternatives. The residents of Doral Greens are very concerned about Airport expansion, and a facility of this size points in that direction. Mr. Lyras asked that the Village Board take an active role in protecting the residents. A resident of Reunion Road of Bellefair addressed the Board. He expressed concern about the air quality and the pollutants in the air that will increase. There is a lot of toxicity involved. There are many chemicals involved, and yet the County says that nothing is carcinogenic. He asked for carcinogenic studies and good toxicology studies. Board of Trustees September 24,2002 Page 8 of 28 Mr. Mike Tedesco of the King Street Area Homeowners Association which represents all homeowners on both sides of the state line addressed the Board. This De-Icing Facility is a component of a bigger picture. He asked that the Board of Trustees be aggressive in voicing their objections to this project. Mr. Roger Matles of Bellefair reiterated the concerns previously expressed. He noted that this Village Board has been very supportive of many issues that have concerned Bellefair. Everyone has been voicing one consistent theme — safety. Safety of the airplanes and safety of the residents. The funding is in place for this facility. The designs and models are all there. This is a done deal. As a resident of the Village he asked the Village Board for their help. Mr. Robert J. Richardson of the King Merritt Homeowners Association of Greenwich addressed the Board. He stated that what he learned this evening was breathtaking in terms of the scale of this project. To lose another 10 acres of buffer land from the airport is very disturbing, but to place this type of facility right next to United Cerebral Palsy is even more than disturbing. Preliminary reaction is negative. He asked that the County scale this project back, and that the Village work hard to ensure that this project, as proposed, is not constructed. Mr. Richard Goldstein of Rye Brook addressed the Board. He stated that this facility will be putting the residents at a safety risk. The County is proposing placing two large targets out there (the 2 million gallon tanks). This de-icing facility will be large enough to handle 737's which means that the hangers will have to be at least 95' in height. This will cause blind spots for the tower. Mr. Goldstein noted that the EPA has studied some of the preliminary data. Study 9821 R00016 notes that gas tanks at high altitudes get extremely cold, and the best way to de-ice is to raise the temperature of the plane and heat the fuel. Heating the hangers is another option. Most of the corporate tenants already have heated hangers. Another aspect is the fact that the County will remove trees that will leave the County's snow dump exposed. Allan Williams of King Street addressed the Board as the Vice President of a Homeowners Association representing 645 Homeowners in the area who are extremely concerned by this project. They are concerned for the residents who live near the proposed facility. They are also concerned for the residents of the elder care facilities, UCP, and all neighbors. He suggested that the Board keep a very close eye on the County. Mr. Martin Rogowsky, County Legislator, addressed the Board. He thanked all the residents for coming to this meeting. He noted that he was working in partnership with the Village and residents. He reviewed the timing of the project. He noted that the Department of Transportation was doing the work, but the Board of Legislators are the decision makers. The County's administration officials are doing a lot of the legwork. They hired the consultants and are doing all of the technical analysis. The Commissioner will try to get the Board of Legislators the DEIS by early November. When the document is received it will be sent to the Environmental and Health Committee. When Board of Trustees September 24,2002 Page 9 of 28 Board of Legislators, and the local officials are satisfied, then the document will be taken to the next step. The DEIS will, hopefully, answer a lot of the questions raised at this meeting. He asked that everyone write to him with the questions that need to be asked. There will be hearings held. The alternatives will be reviewed. Mayor Filipowski stated that the Village's Consultants have already been working on this project. The Board of Trustees will be studying and working hard for all of the residents. Mayor Filipowski asked for a brief recess. The Board reconvened with the Resolution portion of the agenda at 9:36 p.m. RESOLUTIONS: 1. REFERRING K&M REALTY APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND WETLANDS PERMIT ON BOWMAN AVENUE, SECTION 1, BLOCK 22, LOT 2B TO THE PLANNING BOARD Mr. Bradbury read the following Resolution: RESOLUTION REFERRING K&M REALTY APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND WETLANDS PERMIT ON BOWMAN AVENUE SECTION 1, BLOCK 22, LOT 2B TO THE PLANNING BOARD WHEREAS, the Village of Rye Brook has received an Application from K&M Realty Group, Ltd. (the Applicant) for Site Plan Approval and Wetlands Permit for the construction of four (4) buildings, one of which will contain a restaurant and three of which will contain residential dwelling units, parking facilities, lighting, landscaping, and related site development activities; and WHEREAS, the 4.039-acre property (`the Property,' approximately 1.67 acres of which is open water, is located on the south side of Bowman Avenue approximately 900 feet west of the intersection formed by Bowman Avenue and South Ridge Street, within the C-1, Neighborhood Retail Zoning District, in the Village of Rye Brook, New York and is shown as Tax Lot Section 1, Block 22, Lot 213; and WHEREAS, the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees determined that the Project is a Type I action and was designated as Lead Agency for the Project, in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); and Board of Trustees September 24,2002 Page 10 of 28 WHEREAS, the most recent version of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is dated July, 2002 and was revised in response to comments from Village and staff. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application is referred to the Village Planning Board for a report and recommendation; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Applicant shall deposit twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) into the Village's professional fees/environmental review fund, and such additional sums as may be requested, to defray the cost of review of this application; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Applicant shall notify all neighboring property owners within 250 feet of the property line of the subject site. Notifications shall be sent no sooner than 15 days and no later than 10 days before said meeting. Notifications shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, and shall include a brief description of the application and the meeting date and time. Proof of mailing shall be submitted to the Village by the end of the business day the Thursday before the meeting and shall include a map of the site and surrounding area with an identifying code (typically owner name, street address, or tax ID), a list of the property owners, and the certified mail receipts. The Applicant should also submit, at the meeting, any return receipts received as of the date of the meeting. Adam Weckstein, Esq. on behalf of K&M Realty addressed the Board. He noted that Mr. Konigsberg, one of the developers, and Mr. Ryan, Planner/Engineer, were in attendance. It was noted that the DEIS has been resubmitted in accordance with comments from the Village's Consultants. He requested clarification of why this application was being referred to the Planning Board. He felt that at this point in the process the next procedural step would be for the Board to make a determination for whether the DEIS is adequate for public discussion and to go ahead with the SEQRA process. Mr. Bradbury responded that it has been a number of years since the application has been heard by the Village and the public. The Board of Trustees is now looking for a recommendation regarding the DEIS. The public needs to be notified of this application. Mr. Jim Ryan of John Meyer Consulting addressed the Board to make a brief presentation on the application. Mr. Ryan took the Board through the project, covering the issues touched upon in the DEIS and in the draft scope for this project. The project is a commercial/retail residence project located on the south side of Bowman Avenue. The property is 4.03 acres in size; 1.672 acres is open water and 2.367 is dry land. The dry land is composed of two separate parcels referred to as the peninsula, which is the western portion of the property, and the strip, which is the eastern portion of the property. The property is adjacent to the Blind Brook, and incorporates a portion of the east branch of the Blind Brook and the lower Blind Brook pond within the boundaries of the property. The entire property is zoned Cl. The Applicant is seeking site plan approval and a wetlands permit. The development is comprised of four (4) buildings. A single Board of Trustees September 24,2002 Page 11 of 28 4,000 square foot building is proposed on the peninsula portion of the property to be used as a restaurant. The on-site parking is for 54 vehicles with one loading area. The strip portion is going to be developed as residential, with three (3) buildings, each consisting of three (3) residential dwelling units for a total of nine (9) units. Each dwelling unit will contain approximately 1,700 square feet of floor area. Each unit will have a two car attached garage, and 27 parking spaces will be provided on that portion of the property. Soil disturbance will consist of grading and re-contouring the property in preparation for the roads, driveways, and structures. The property was originally used by previous owner, Barber & Coccola, as a source of sand and gravel from the 1950's to approximately 1963. The site is now essentially made up of a fill type of material, and there is construction demolition debris on the property. In general the property will not require extensive earthwork, with the exception of the removal of some of the "material" on the property. With regard to surface and ground water, the developer does not anticipate having an impact on the ground water because the impervious surface area associated with this development is approximately 1.3 acres total. Mr. Rotfeld, the Village's Consultant, has reviewed this application. In general, with regard to water quality, there will be an improvement. Detention on site will be provided. Regarding the wetlands, they have been delineated by a wetlands expert and it was found that there is really no significant wetlands except for the natural water on the property. There will be a clean up of the property. There is fill material and construction debris. In addition, new vegetation will be planted. There has been a study of the pond and the wildlife to ensure that there were no endangered species in the pond. The general feeling of the developer and the consultants is that because of the state of the property the developer can enhance it. There are two driveways located off of Bowman Avenue. Traffic studies have been done and it was found that the traffic levels will be improved as a result of the application and some of the improvements that will be made. Site distance has been reviewed. Access alternatives have also been looked at. Mr. Ryan noted that the property was essentially a dumping ground for construction debris. That will all be removed and new vegetations will be planted to enhance the overall view of the property. Some very specific and specialized wetland plantings will be installed as part of that development. There is one issue that has come up, and it relates to hazardous and environmental work done on the property. During the review of the historical records it was found that initial excavation had taken place on the property, particularly on the strip portion. During the excavation tests uncovered some gasoline contamination on the property. Remediation is planned but not required. The Applicant is looking forward to the public hearing phase in order to get feedback from the Board and members of the public. Mr. Ryan noted that the Applicant would like to be before the Board of Trustees within four to six weeks. Board of Trustees September 24,2002 Page 12 of 28 Trustee Brackman expressed her concern regarding matters being reviewed by the Department of Environmental Conservation. Mr. Ryan stated that the DEC informed the developer that a passive system of remediation was best. This will be an ongoing process. No environmental clearance is required prior to proceeding. It will be folded into the process, and the material that is there will be removed. At this time there is very little material left on the property and it will all be removed. Trustee Santon noted that this property is entirely within the Harrison school district. The City of Rye will be an interested agency when the documents are accepted. He asked that these documents be forwarded to the City of Rye. Mr. Ryan stated that they would provide the documents to the City of Rye. Trustee Santon asked when this project was last before the Village Board. Mr. Weckstein stated that it was before the Village Board in the year 2000. At that time the Applicant was discussing the issues that needed to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement. Trustee Santon felt that the Board needed to be refreshed and brought up-to- date with regard to this application. This project has been in various stages of dormancy over the years. He asked for the prior documentation in order to have a baseline to start from. He stated that he needed the history of this project to complete his review. He also felt that the remediation part of this project should be addressed now. Trustee Santon noted that not one member of the current Board was on the Board during the other review processes, therefore, he felt it was important to do a thorough review. In addition, this application will be reviewed by the Village's Consultants, Staff, and Planning Board. Mr. Konigsberg, the Applicant, stated that he purchased the property in 1993, and in 1994 the property was rezoned. There was a project lined up, however, over the years the project changed. There were a number of reasons that the project did not move forward. Now, all of the issues have been addressed and the concerns have been dealt with. The DEIS has been submitted to the Village's Consultant, Frederick P. Clark & Associates, and each of its specialists have issued memos that state all of the issues have been addressed. As far as remediation, there is a passive system in place. The Applicant will remove all of the soil, even though there is no impact to the water, wetlands, or animal life. This will be done before construction commences on the site. Mr. Konigsberg noted that the Village Board and the Planning Board were both relying on Mr. Dolph Rotfeld regarding whether or not the document is complete. Mr. Rotfeld has informed the Applicant that it is complete. The Applicant now looks forward to moving this project along at this time. It is appropriate to refer the application to the Planning Board, who has had the document since July. He was hopeful that the Planning Board would be able to advise the Board of Trustees by October whether or not the document was complete. In that manner the Applicant could be before the Board of Trustees by mid-November. Mr. Ken Heller of Lincoln Avenue addressed the Board. He suggested that the Environmental Conservation Council review this application. He stated that it was his recollection that the DEC found petroleum on the property and the project was stopped. He also noted that although the Applicant states that this property does not flood, there Board of Trustees September 24,2002 Page 13 of 28 has not been any substantial rain for two or three years. Nine units constructed in an area that is known to flood will have repercussions. Trustee Brackman felt that the Planning Board should be referred this application as they have the expertise to review the application and give the Board of Trustees their recommendations. She asked whether or not there was a requirement that the remediation take place before this application goes any further. Mr. Beane stated that the remediation work can be made a condition of the approval. Before construction takes place the remediation work should be complete. Mr. John Grzan, Chairman of the Planning Board, addressed the Board. He noted that the Planning Board has not yet seen any documentation on this project. This application has not been addressed by the Planning Board, and as the agenda has already been set for the October meeting, it will not be reviewed until the November meeting. He noted that during his four-year term on the Planning Board he has not reviewed this application in any form. Mr. Beane stated that based upon his knowledge of this project he did not know of any time-limits. This application needs a full Planning Board review. It is in everyone's interest to allow this application to go through the process. On a motion made by Trustee Santon, and seconded by Trustee Brackman, the Resolution was adopted. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE GOODMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE 2) AUTHORIZING REDUCTION OF RED ROOF FARM SUBDIVISION PERFORMANCE BOND Mr. Bradbury read the following Resolution: Board of Trustees September 24,2002 Page 14 of 28 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REDUCTION OF THE RED ROOF FARM SUBDIVISION PERFORMANCE BOND WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook (the Board of Trustees) approved the form and sufficiency of the OLC/RBAG Performance Bond (the Performance Bond) on September 3, 1998 in the amount of One Million, Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars and 00/100 ($1,750,000.00) guaranteeing the infrastructure improvements required by the resolution approving the subdivision now known as Blind Brook Estates; WHEREAS, OLC/RGAG has requested a reduction of the Performance Bond; and WHEREAS, certain infrastructure approvals required by the approved construction plans of Blind Brook Estate have been completed to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer; and WHEREAS, the Village Engineer provided OLC/RGAG with a list of infrastructure improvements that are still required to be completed to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer. NOW, THERFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees, in accordance with Section 219-22.B(2) of the Village Code approves a reduction in the amount of the Performance Bond guaranteeing the infrastructure improvements of Blind Brook Estates to a value of $450,000.00. AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that this bond shall not be reduced until OLC/RBAG pays all bills now due and replenishes the escrow account as directed by the Village Administrator. AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that all applicable provisions, conditions, and restrictions of the subdivision plan notes, conditions of sub-division approval and restrictive covenants shall remain in full force and effect. Trustee Santon suggested that a presentation be made on this matter. Mr. Beane noted that the developer has requested a reduction based on the fact that certain construction matters have been completed, and the infrastructure has been constructed. Board of Trustees September 24,2002 Page 15 of 28 A representative for the developer addressed the Board. He noted that a reduction in the bond was requested over a year ago. Various other issues have been addressed during this period of time, and the bond reduction request was renewed a number of months ago. An analysis has been performed by the Village Engineer, who recommended a reduction in the performance bond in the amount of approximately $248,000. This amount should be further reduced as a result of wetland mitigations that have been completed by additional $15,000. Furthermore, the Village Engineer recommended that $136,000 relating to pavement and curbing should be released as all of the obligations in this regard have been complied with. The developer feels that the only outstanding matter is related to guardrails, and an amount to be determined by the Village Engineer should be withheld. The Applicant is requesting a fair and reasonable reduction in the bond. The developer has done everything asked by the Board and the Village. Mr. Richard Lubkin of Red Roof Farm addressed the Board. He noted that there is no doubt that there is a storm water drainage problem in this subdivision. His home is subject to flooding and his basement leaks. The un-addressed drainage concerns may be causing long-term degradation of the soon to be dedicated public roadways and the ball field. The Village should refrain from lowering the bond until this matter is addressed. Mr. Kevin Treacy of 2 Birch Lane addressed the Board. The center-line of houses come down in a row, and between them are the back yards of all the homes. Mr. Tracy's home is at the bottom of this row and the water flowing down the hill heads directly for his home. He has frequent flooding, leakage and cracks to the foundation of his home. Three (3) drains have been installed, and still there is flooding. Water shoots down the hill. This is a serious concern and he asked that the Village not lower the bond until this matter has been resolved. Mr. Brasesco of 28 Red Roof Drive addressed the Board. There are serious drainage problems. When the money is given back to the developer there will be nothing holding the developer here. There is an obvious problem. The water flowing down the hill is causing erosion problems that will affect the entire community. Mr. Harry Tavitian of 4 Birch Lane addressed the Board. He noted that there are three dead trees on his property that were supposed to be protected. One tree was removed shortly after he moved in, and the other two remain. This problem needs to be addressed along with the serious drainage problems within the development. He also noted that he has filed complaints with the Village, however, no one has gotten back to him on this matter. In the southwest corner of his property there is a swamp, which reappears every time it rains, and lasts for over a week each time. He asked that something be done. The drainage needs to be addressed on his property, and on the entire subdivision. A resident of Berkley Lane addressed the Board. The drainage issues have affected the surrounding community. The underground springs were disturbed during construction, and nothing was done about this. There were never any water issues on their property prior to the Red Roof Farm construction. Now there have been non-stop water problems. He has been offered some options, including the installation of a catch basin. Curtain Board of Trustees September 24,2002 Page 16 of 28 drains need to be installed between Red Roof and his property, and they need to be deep enough to catch the underground springs, and directed to a catch basin. Mr. Brasesco of Red Roof Drive addressed the Board. He questioned whether or not the developer has been instructed to look at the 50 trees that need to be replaced. Mr. Bradbury noted that the Village has requested information from the Army Corp of Engineers regarding whether or not the bond has been satisfied. This information has not yet been received. Mr. Paulens responded that he received a copy of the report prepared by Evans Associates and they will forward it to the Village immediately. The representative for the developer noted that the original bond was posted for the original drainage plan. The developer is in compliance with that plan. The bond itself has been complied with regarding the drainage plan. There was an extensive period of discussion between the various experts, including the Village's consultant. The Village's Consultant in consultation with the developer's Consultant approved a subsequent drainage plan. This developer posted additional security in an amount over $135,000, and is continuing to proceed with the mitigation plan. There is a fund that has been established, without any obligation. He felt that it would be wrong for the Board to hold back additional funds. Mayor Filipowski stated that the extra escrow fund was created to address the drainage problems on one side of the project. The drainage issues on the other side of the project are covered by the bond. Mr. Beane addressed two issues. The first was in response to comments regarding the bond and what remains. He noted that there is a drainage plan. The drainage plan must be performed properly — it has to work. The issue is not whether or not the plan has changed, but rather whether it works or not. The drainage problem directly impacts the infrastructure of the Village of Rye Brook. There is a plethora of drainage problems that proves that the drainage plan is not complete. The Village is there to protect its residents. However, there should be a reduction to the bond. The developer does have a right to a reduction, and the Board must come to an agreement on the amount of the reduction. He suggested an Executive Session to discuss this matter. On a motion made by Trustee Brackman, and seconded by Trustee Goodman, an Executive Session was called. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE GOODMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE Board of Trustees September 24,2002 Page 17 of 28 Upon the Board's return, the meeting was reconvened. On a motion made by Trustee Brackman, and seconded by Trustee Goodman, the first Resolved Clause in the Resolution was amended to reduce the bond to a value of $450,000. In addition, a Further Resolved Clause was added explaining the rationale. Trustee Santon expressed his concern regarding the drainage problems throughout this subdivision. This property was heavily vegetated, and the developer clear-cut the site of all vegetation. Part of the drainage problem is that mature vegetation is no longer there. He expressed his concern regarding the trees to be saved. More trees would absorb surface water. The developer does not want to deal with the drainage issues. The developer has not been willing to deal with the warranties guaranteed to the residents of Red Roof Farm. He expressed his concern regarding a consistent pattern of drainage problems throughout the entire project. Trustee Santon felt that if$1,750,000 was not enough to motivate the developer he could not see the developer being motivated by $450,000. Almost every home has problems, either concerning drainage or dead trees. This project went beyond the limits of disturbance. Trustee Santon noted that trees on Bonwit Drive have died as a result of damage to their root systems. He felt that the developer should be responsible for those trees. Mayor Filipowski stated that the bond is being fixed to deal with the problems. He reminded everyone that the issue before the Board was the amount of the bond. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE GOODMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING NAY MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE 3) RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERING THE REMOVAL AND INSTALLATION OF FENCING AT PINE RIDGE/RED ROOF FARM BALL FIELD Mr. Bradbury read the following Resolution: Board of Trustees September 24,2002 Page 18 of 28 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZATION TO REMOVE THE EXISTING FENCE AT PINE RIDGE/RED ROOF FARM BALL FIELD RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees hereby authorizes the Village or the Red Roof Developer to remove the existing fence located along the northern portion of the Village property line at the Pine Ridge/Red Roof Farm Ball Field and afford the developer twenty (20) days to accomplish the removal. Mr. Ben Miloro of Hillcrest Avenue addressed the Board. He noted that there is a hazardous fence near the ball field, on Village property, that should be removed. Trustee Santon agreed and noted that the developer has been directed to remove this fence, but has refused. He felt that the Village Staff should remove the fence and the developer should be charged for all work done in connection with the removal. Trustee Goodman agreed with Trustee Santon. Mayor Filipowski noted that Staff and Counsel will be giving a time limit to the developer and, if the fence is not removed during that time, the Village will remove it. Mr. Beane stated that the developer needed to be given a reasonable amount of time to remove the fence. He suggested 20 days. On a motion made by Trustee Brackman, and seconded by Trustee Goodman, the resolution was adopted: TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE GOODMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE Mayor Filipowski asked that the Resolution regarding installation of the fence be read. Mr. Bradbury read the following Resolution: Board of Trustees September 24,2002 Page 19 of 28 RESOLUTION RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees hereby authorizes the Village staff to arrange for a new 6' black vinyl fence to be installed in the northern portion of the Village property at the Pine Ridge/Red Roof Ball Field. Trustee Brackman moved to table this Resolution. Trustee Goodman seconded the motion to table the resolution. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE GOODMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE 4) REFERRING NO PARKING AREA/STOP SIGN REQUEST ON RED ROOF DRIVE TO THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION Mr. Bradbury read the following Resolution: RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION A REQUEST TO CONSIDER A STOP SIGN AND TO ESTABLISH A NO PARKING AREA ON A PORTION OF RED ROOF DRIVE WHEREAS, several residents have expressed that there be No Parking in the Red Roof Drive westerly cul-de-sac and the need for a stop sign traveling west on Red Roof Drive at the corner of Birch Lane; and WHEREAS, the roadways in the Red Roof Farm development are currently private streets not under Village control regarding signage or traffic enforcement; and WHEREAS, the Village anticipates that the Red Roof Farm developer will be making a request in the near future to consider making these public streets; and WHEREAS, the Village is completing a ball field project adjacent to this area that has limited on-site parking, and WHEREAS, the Village desires to start evaluating these traffic and parking issues prior to these private streets becoming public streets. Board of Trustees September 24,2002 Page 20 of 28 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village Board refers the request to consider the need for a stop sign traveling west on Red Roof Drive at the corner of Birch Lane and the installation of a No Parking area in the Red Roof Drive westerly cul-de-sac to the Traffic Commission for a report and recommendation. Mayor Filipowski asked if this Resolution was sufficient to refer this matter to the Traffic Commission. This is a private street that will become a Village street. Mr. Beane responded that it was. He stated that the Traffic Commission can make the recommendation, but it cannot be voted upon until it is a Village Street. Trustee Santon felt that the stop sign should be reviewed by the Chief of Police. The residents need immediate relief, and a decision needs to be made quickly. He suggested that the Board make an executive decision, rather than making a referral to the Traffic Commission. He also requested a stop sign at the intersection of Berkley Drive and Old Orchard, and the intersection going eastbound on Berkley at Old Orchard. Mayor Filipowski responded that the Board is trying to stay ahead and take charge. The Village does not own these streets and cannot go in and put up the sign. The developer has been contacted and is aware of this request. Mr. Brasesco of Red Roof Drive noted that the residents have already ordered the signs to be installed. They realize that they may not be enforceable, but hopefully they will make people aware that they need to stop. On a motion made by Trustee Degling, and seconded by Trustee Brackman, the Resolution was adopted. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE GOODMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE 5) CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE DR. LEE BUILDING EXPANSION AMENDED SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL ON 62 BOWMAN AVENUE Mr. Bradbury read the following Resolution Board of Trustees September 24,2002 Page 21 of 28 RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE DR. LEE BUILDING EXPANSION AMENDED SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL ON 62 BOWMAN AVENUE WHEREAS, Dr. Myung-Ho Lee has made an application to the Village of Rye Brook for amended Special Permit and Site Plan for the construction of a 2,463-square foot addition to the existing 1,890-square foot building, reconfiguration and expansion of the existing parking area, installation of three (3) additional light bollards, landscaping, and related site development activities (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the ±0.42-acre property is located on the south side of Bowman Avenue approximately 450 feet east of the intersection of Bowman Avenue and South Ridge Street within the R2-F Two-Family Residential Zoning District, Tax Parcel Section 1, Block 23, Lot 4 (the "Site"); and WHEREAS, the application was referred to the Village Planning Board by the Village Board of Trustees on November 13, 2001, and the Village Planning Board adopted a resolution at its May 9, 2002 meeting, recommending approval of the application, subject to certain conditions; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is currently pursuing variances for the Project from the Village Zoning Board of Appeals. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees shall conduct a Public Hearing on Tuesday, October 8, 2002 at 7:30 pm at the Village Offices located at 938 King Street, Rye Brook, New York on the subject application; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk shall publish a notice of public hearing as required by law. Trustee Santon reminded the Village Administrator that the Applicant has not complied with the original Special Permit and the conditions placed upon it. He reviewed the areas where the Applicant was not in compliance; including the agreement to file a document with the County to ensure that the property would not be subdivided. On a motion made by Trustee Brackman, and seconded by Trustee Degling, the foregoing resolution was adopted: TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE GOODMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE Board of Trustees September 24,2002 Page 22 of 28 6) DISCUSSION OF THE PROJECT AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUBMISSION OF A WESTCHESTER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR SIDEWALK RESTORATION AND REHABILITATION Mr. Bradbury read the following Resolution: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUBMISSION OF A WESTCHESTER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR SIDEWALK RESTORATION AND REHABILITATION WHEREAS, the Village of Rye Brook is a member of the Westchester County Urban County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program; and WHEREAS, the CDBG Program has been successful in Westchester County by providing assistance to municipalities; and WHEREAS, the Village of Rye Brook is interested in restoring and rehabilitating sidewalks in certain sections of the Village including Ellendale Avenue, Hillcrest Avenue, Woodland Avenue, Whittemore Place, Franklin Street and West William Street; and WHEREAS, on September 24, 2002 the Board of Trustees conducted a public meeting on the application; and WHEREAS, the Village of Board of Trustees, as Lead Agency, has determined that the project is a Type II Action pursuant to Part 617.5 (c) (1) of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), which actions have been determined not to have negative impacts on the environment and are consequently not subject to environmental review under SEQRA; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees hereby approves the application to the Westchester County CDBG Program for funding assistance to restore and rehabilitate sidewalks; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village Administrator is authorized to take all appropriate steps to submit an application for funding to the Westchester County CDBG Program in the amount of$309,953 for the above described purpose with a Rye Brook contribution of$201,969 for a total proposed project cost of$504,922. Board of Trustees September 24,2002 Page 23 of 28 Mr. Bradbury summarized the Resolution, noting that that the Village of Rye Brook is submitting an application for a Block Grant for the 2004 Program year. The monies from the Grant would be for sidewalks and curbing on Ellendale Avenue, Hillcrest Avenue, Woodland Avenue, Whittemore Place, Franklin Street and West William Street. On a motion made by Trustee Brackman, and seconded by Trustee Degling, the following resolution was adopted: TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE GOODMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE 7) DISCUSSION OF THE PROJECT AND RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUBMISSION OF A WESTCHESTER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC RESTROOMS, FENCING AND A GRAVITY RETAINING WALL AT GARIBALDI PARK Mr. Bradbury read the following Resolution: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUBMISSION OF A WESTCHESTER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC RESTROOMS,FENCING AND A GRAVITY FED RETAINING WALL AT GARIBALDI PARK WHEREAS, the Village of Rye Brook is a member of the Westchester County Urban County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program; and WHEREAS, the CDBG Program has been successful in Westchester County by providing assistance to municipalities; and WHEREAS, the Village of Rye Brook is interested in installing public restrooms, fencing and a gravity retaining wall at Garibaldi Park which will service and enhance the mobility of primarily children and senior citizens; and WHEREAS, on September 24, 2002 the Board of Trustees conducted a public meeting on the application; and Board of Trustees September 24,2002 Page 24 of 28 WHEREAS, The Village Board of Trustees, as Lead Agency, has determined that the Project is a Type II Action pursuant to Part 617.5 (c)(7) of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), which actions have been determined not to have negative impacts on the environment and are consequently not subject to environmental review under SEQRA; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees hereby approves the application to the Westchester County CDBG Program for funding assistance to install public restrooms, fences and a gravity retaining wall; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village Administrator is authorized to take all appropriate steps to submit an application for funding to the Westchester County CDBG Program in the amount of $38,640 for the above described purpose with a Rye Brook contribution of$25,760 for a total proposed project cost of$64,400. Mr. Bradbury stated that this Resolution also involved a Block Grant. If obtained, the monies from this Grant would be used to install public restrooms, fencing and a gravity retaining wall at Garibaldi Park. These improvements will service and enhance the mobility of primarily children and senior citizens. On a motion made by Trustee Brackman, and seconded by Trustee Degling, the Resolution was adopted: TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE GOODMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE 8) AWARDING CONTRACT #02-06: STREET TREE PRUNING, REMOVAL AND COMPOSTING SERVICES Mr. Bradbury read the following Resolution: RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT #02-06 STREET TREE PRUNING, REMOVAL AND COMPOSTING SERVICES WHEREAS, the Village of Rye Brook has solicited bids for Contract 02-06 A Street Tree Pruning, Removal and Composting Services; and Board of Trustees September 24,2002 Page 25 of 28 WHEREAS, a public notice was duly advertised in an official newspaper of the Village of Rye Brook on August 260i, and September 3rd, 2002; and WHEREAS, at 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, September 100i, 2002, all bids received were opened as summarized below; and BIDDER BID AMOUNT BID BOND 1. Central Tree Service, Inc. $39,890.00 Certified Check 2. Evergreen Arborists, Inc. $46,160.00 Certified Check WHEREAS, upon reviewing the bids, the Village Engineer has determined that the lowest responsible bidder meeting the requirements of the contract documents is Central Tree Service, Inc. for the total bid price of$39,890.00. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that contract 902-Street Tree Pruning, Removal and Composting Services is hereby awarded to Central Tree Service, Inc. for the total bid price of$39,890.00; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute and deliver all documents necessary or appropriate to accomplish the purposes of this resolution. On a motion made by Trustee Brackman, and seconded by Trustee Degling, the Resolution was adopted. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE GOODMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE 9) AWARDING CONTRACT #02-08: ONE (1) 25 CUBIC-YARD SELF CONTAINED VACUUM LEAF LOADER Mr. Bradbury read the following Resolution: RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT #02-08: ONE (1) 25 CUBIC-YARD SELF CONTAINED VACUUM LEAF LOADER Board of Trustees September 24,2002 Page 26 of 28 WHEREAS, the Village of Rye Brook has solicited bids for Contract 02-08 A One (1) 25 Cubic-yard self-contained vacuum leaf loader; and WHEREAS, a public notice was duly advertised in an official newspaper of the Village of Rye Brook on September 60i, 2002; and WHEREAS, at 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, September 170i, 2002, all bids received were opened as summarized below; and BIDDER BID AMOUNT BID BOND 3. Advanced Equipment, Inc. $ 25,500.00 Yes 4. TRIUS, Inc. $ 25,666.00 Yes WHEREAS, upon reviewing the bids, the Village Engineer has determined that the lowest responsible bidder meeting the requirements of the contract documents is Advanced Equipment, Inc. for the total bid price of$25,500.00. RESOLVED, that contract 902-08 A One (1) 25 Cubic-yard self-contained vacuum leaf loader is hereby awarded to Advanced Equipment, Inc. for the total bid price of$25,500.00; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute and deliver all documents necessary or appropriate to accomplish the purposes of this resolution. On a motion made by Trustee Degling, and seconded by Trustee Brackman, the Resolution was adopted. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE GOODMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE In light of the late hour, Mayor Filipowski suggested that all the remaining matters be adjourned to the next meeting. Mr. Bradbury requested that the Board address one final Resolution. Board of Trustees September 24,2002 Page 27 of 28 RESOLUTION APPOINTMENT OF RECREATION ASSISTANT RESOLVED, that Angeline Tondreau, of 264 King Street, Port Chester, New York, is hereby appointed to the position of Recreation Assistant with the Village of Rye Brook, subject to the Civil Service procedures of the State of New York; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the annual salary for the position is $31,990 with an effective start date of October 9, 2002 and a probationary period of 26 (twenty-six) weeks. On a motion made by Trustee Brackman, and seconded by Trustee Degling, the following resolution was adopted: TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE GOODMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE Trustee Santon asked to address one final item. He pointed out that the Village received a request for appeal under the Moratorium law, dated September 19, 2002 from the counsel of the Applicant. He noted that this application must be forwarded to the Planning Board. The Board agreed. Mayor Filipowski announced that that the next Trustee Meetings were scheduled for October 8, 2002 and October 22, 2002. There meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Christopher J. Bradbury Village Clerk Board of Trustees September 24,2002 Page 28 of 28